Friday, February 13, 2015

The pathetic Corrente

Then the 'band' broke up but Lambert pretended he was the band and blogged under the site.

If you never got how pathetic Corrente is, check it out today.

Barack's spent the last two days pushing for Congress to authorize his war.

And Iraq is what put Corrente on the map.

So surely they are covering Iraq, right?

Wrong.

When not begging constantly for money, Lambert 'writes' about his garden and other useless topics.

Like how he needs to do this home improvement project or that.

Can't say a word about Iraq.

Which is probably a good thing.

When you're as stupid and uninformed as Lambert, it's probably better that you don't talk about Iraq.

Corrente, in its original form, was like Jefferson Airplane. Today? It's like that freak show cover band Mickey Thomas fronted and called "Starship." (I'm not referring to the hit making Starship. I'm talking about after Grace Slick walked and Mickey hit the oldies circuit in the 90s.)

Thursday, February 12, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, a military
base in Iraq with US troops on it comes under attack, Antiwar.com calls
for pressure to be put on Congress to reject President Barack Obama's
AUMF request, the House Foreign Affairs Committee addresses Iraq and
the AUMF, US House Rep Brian Higgins declares: "You know, let's just
acknowledge that our investment of $25 billion in the Iraqi national
army failed." and much more.

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama sent a written list of what he
wanted from the Congress regarding his ongoing actions against Iraq and
Syria that supposedly will defeat the Islamic State. Since August 8th,
he's been bombing Iraq and now he wants the US Congress to make it legal
by passing an Authorization of Use of Military Force.

There are no geographical limits to
the military action sanctioned by the resolution. Making clear the
global framework of the new “war on ISIS,” Obama wrote in a letter to
Congress that ISIS could “pose a threat beyond the Middle East,
including to the United States homeland.”The inclusion of
language ending the authorization in three years unless the resolution
is renewed has as much significance as similar “sunset” provisions in
the Patriot Act, which has been routinely reauthorized by Congress. In
his announcement of the AUMF, Obama stressed that the three-year
framework did not represent a “timetable” for military action and could
be extended by Congress under his successor in the White House.In
an attempt to delude the American public, which is overwhelmingly
opposed to war, that the new operations are to be limited in scope, the
authorization states that it does not provide for “enduring offensive
ground combat operations.” Again, the wording is formulated so as to
allow virtually any type of military action. There is no definition of
“enduring” or “offensive.”Extended combat operations in Iraq,
Syria or another country could be justified on the grounds that they
were “defensive” or not “enduring.”Obama claimed that the
resolution “does not call for the deployment of US ground combat forces
in Iraq and Syria.” This is simply a lie. Obama last year deployed 1,500
US troops to Iraq, many of which have already been involved in combat
operations. The authorization would sanction a vast expansion of such
operations.

It’s time for a preemptive strike at the War Party’s congressional fortress. Please call your congressional representative today and urge them to vote no on the AUMF
– because we can win this one. We stopped them last time when Obama
decided it was time to bomb Syria. One by one members of Congress who
were inclined to authorize that military campaign backed away when faced
with a deluge of outraged calls from constituents. We can do it again –
oh yes we can! Please make that call today – because the future of this country, not to mention the peace of the world, depends on it.

Today, US House Rep Lois Frankel wondered about what Barack was
proposing, "Is military action the only thing? How does humanitarian
aid fit into this? Or educating women? Is this the only way out? And
where does it leave us? Who fills the void if we get ISIL? I mean, I
could ask a lot more questions." She was speaking at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee hearing today.

There's also these comments from the hearing.

US House Rep Lee Zeldin: The President in his original strategy back
in September when he gave a speech, he was talking about dropping bombs
and reliance on Iraqi military and law enforcement to finish the job.
When I was in Iraq in 2006, it was an accomplishment to get them to
show up to work. Expecting no threat that day, getting them to show up
to a precinct that's a quarter mile from their house. We were trying to
get them to show up. So relying on elements on the ground who have no
morale, no patriotism, they don't have the resources, they don't have
the training, they don't have the will is something that we have to take
into account. In that speech, the President said this was going to be
different than past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there will be
no boots on the ground. And, in the same exact speech, he says,
"Tonight I'm announcing I'm sending 495 additional troops to Iraq.
Someone shows me a picture of their grandson in the Air Force. He's in
Baghdad. He's wearing the uniform. He's carrying a rifle. He's
wearing boots. Those boots are on the ground. The use of this term
'boots on the ground' here in Washington? The reality is that we have
boots on the ground right now and I think we need to not worry about
what polls say what wording sounds the best.

We'll come back to the hearing but Frankel and Zeldin's reaction and
that of others certainly suggest that Eric Garris is making a valid
argument that pressure can be brought to bear and have an effect.

Contact:
Michael Briggs
(202) 224-5141WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the
following statement today after President Barack Obama formally asked
Congress to authorize a military campaign against the Islamic State
terrorist group:“The Islamic State is a brutal and dangerous terrorist organization
which has murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children,
including Americans. It must be defeated.“I voted against the war in Iraq because I feared very much the
destabilizing impact it would have on the region. Today, after 13 years
in Afghanistan and 12 years in Iraq, after the loss of almost 7,000
troops and the expenditure of trillions of dollars, I very much fear
U.S. involvement in an expanding and never-ending quagmire in that
region of the world.“I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are
authorized under current law, and I support targeted U.S. military
efforts to protect U.S. citizens.“It is my firm belief, however, that the war against ISIS will never
be won unless nations in the Middle East step up their military efforts
and take more responsibility for the security and stability of their
region. The United States and other western powers should support our
Middle East allies, but this war will never be won unless Muslim nations
in the region lead that fight.“It is worth remembering that Saudi Arabia, for example, is a nation
controlled by one of the wealthiest families in the world and has the
fourth largest military budget of any nation. This is a war for the soul
of Islam and the Muslim nations must become more heavily engaged.

“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody
war in the Middle East. I therefore cannot support the resolution in its
current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat
troops.”

Senator Tim Kaine's office issued the following today:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine released the
following statement on the draft Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) against ISIL announced by President Obama today. For more than
seven months, Kaine has been a leading voice urging the administration
to seek a specific authorization for military action against ISIL while
pressing his Congressional colleagues to debate and vote on the mission –
a mission he believes goes beyond the intent of existing authorizations from 2001 and 2002.

“I applaud President Obama for taking this important step
in defining the United States’ role in the multinational effort to
defeat ISIL. With the Administration’s decision to submit a written
proposal and formally seek Congressional authorization, we can now focus
on having the proper debate and vote the American people and our
servicemembers deserve.

“The administration’s draft authorization reflects
consultations with Congress and includes many provisions I support, such
as a repeal of the 2002 authorization and a 3-year sunset. But I am
concerned about the breadth and vagueness of the U.S. ground troop
language and will seek to clarify it. As the Foreign Relations Committee
prepares to take up this draft authorization, I look forward to a
robust debate, along with amendments and votes, that will inform the
American public about our mission and further refine this authorization
to ensure that the U.S. is vigorously assisting nations willing to
battle their own terrorist threat rather than carrying the unsustainable
burden of policing a region that won't police itself.”

And today US House Rep Adam Schiff's office issued the following:

Washington, DC –Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and author of legislation providing a limited and narrow authorization for use of military force against ISIL, released the following statement:
“The Administration’s engagement with Congress on a new authorization
for use of military force against ISIL has been enormously beneficial
and should jumpstart Congressional action. With the receipt of specific
language from the President, Congress has run out of excuses for any
further delay of a debate and vote on a new authorization. “The
Administration has been carefully considering how to craft an
authorization of our mission against ISIL and I believe its proposal
contains important limiting provisions – including a three year sunset
and an immediate repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF – but there are some key
aspects of the proposal which I believe must be narrowed further. In
particular, a new authorization should also include a sunset of the 2001
AUMF; without one, any sunset of the new authorization will be
ineffectual, since the next president can claim continued reliance on
the old one. Such a result would fail to meet the goal set by the
President last summer when he argued that that the old authorization
should be refined and ultimately repealed. Additionally, a new
authorization should place more specific limits on the use of ground
troops to ensure we do not authorize another major ground war without
the President coming to Congress to make the case for one.
"There are additional concerns over the lack of a geographic limitation
and a broad definition of associated forces which will also be the
subject of debate. In the days ahead, I look forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the President's
proposal and provide a properly-tailored authorization for the war
against ISIL.”

But for those who showed leadership, there were also those who cowered.

Once upon a time, many years ago, Tammy Baldwin was a member of the
House of Representatives and stood against the Iraq War. Today? She's
in the Senate and "pleased" (her term) with Barack's request, This
despite having a few 'concerns': "I’m concerned that the vague language
of the Administration’s draft
proposal may leave the door open to putting boots on the ground for
combat operations and put the United States at risk of repeating the
mistakes of the past and becoming bogged down in an open-ended conflict.
I’m also concerned that the draft AUMF would authorize action for 3
years without establishing measurable goals, benchmarks of success and a
clear scope in the battle against ISIL."

Also crawling on her belly is US House Rep Barbara Lee who is "pleased"
as in, "I am pleased that the proposed authorization includes a repeal
of the
misguided 2002 AUMF, that authorized an unnecessary and disastrous war
in Iraq." And she's also "glad" -- "Additionally, I am glad the
proposed authorization includes language
recognizing the vital role that a comprehensive, diplomatic, economic
and political solution must play in ultimately degrading and dismantling
ISIL." She has a few reservations and even insists that she "will keep
fighting to repeal the 2001 AUMF, a blank check for endless war."
Yeah, she's claimed to be fighting that fight since 2009. She's not
progressed one bit on it. But then she really doesn't care to while
Barack's in office.

Today the US House Foreign Affairs Committee addressed the topic of
Islamic State. The witnesses appearing before the committee included
former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American
Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan. US House
Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel
is the Ranking Member.

US House Rep Brad Sherman: I believe ISIS is a lesser threat to the
United States than the Shi'ite alliance [reference to Iran's Shi'ite
fighters]. Ground troops, if necessary to take the territory, will be
necessary to hold the territory. The [Kurdish] Peshmerga are not going
to be welcome in Sunni Arab area and the Iraqi army? We saw what they
did. It was the greatest transfer of weaponry to a terrorist
organization in history. The Iraqi government has some effective
fighting units. They are the Shi'ite militias that have engaged in
murderous ethnic cleansing of Sunnis -- under-reported in the American
press. And so I don't see who we have that will be a ground force to
take Sunni areas. I do know that I don't want to have to vote to have
American soldiers going house-to-house in Mosul in a bloody hand-to-hand
role because no other ground forces are available. As to the AUMF,
we've got the text the President sent over, leaves in place the 2001
AUMF. In effect, republishes it, reaffirms it. Well what is that that
we would be reaffirming 15 years later? Unlimited in time. Unlimited in
what weapons or tactics or ground forces. It authorized over 100,000
forces in Afghanistan last decade. It would authorize over 100,000 US
soldiers to be deployed on the ground next decade. And, of course,
unlimited in geography. So if we republish, rather than repeal, that
it's hard to say that the President doesn't have enough authority to do
all the things that many of us hope he does not do. And then as to the
timing issue? If Congress is doing its job and there's a three year
AUMF, after two years we pass something else rather than waiting for two
days while we have soldiers in the field wondering whether Congress
will pass the bill.

Serious objections were raised throughout the hearing, serious issues with what Barack is requesting.

US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: I personally will not -- I don't
believe I can speak for my colleagues -- but I will not be giving the
President of the United States -- and I don't think the Congress will
give the President of the United States -- a blank check on the use of
American military force in the Arab world or in the Gulf -- where ever
it is. And, by the way, it's maybe not specific enough in the territory
-- much less the timing of this. We're not going to give him a blank
check for a given period of time. We need to know exactly if that means
that he would be willing to commit major forces on the ground or not.
That needs to be part of any agreement we have. So I don't see this
being: Oh, the president's asking? Thus he's going to get whatever he
wants. We need to work this out. We need to work out the details. I
personally don't believe this is going to be settled by the military.
When we eliminated the Soviet Union -- which was then the ultimate
threat to peace and stability in the world, it was done not by the
deployment of large numbers of troops. And we need to create a dynamic
that will end up with the defeat of this threat to western civilization.
We need to create that dynamic. And that means what we did to defeat
Communism. We made that our number one goal and we worked with anybody
who would work with us to defeat that goal. And that made it possible
for us, by the way, to defeat them without conflict -- direct military
conflict -- with the United States. Let me just note that I think the
President of the United States has not reached out -- we've already
heard about the Kurds and other people and other groups in the world and
especially in that region who should be our best friends and mobilize
them in this effort -- whether it's General [Egyptian President Abdel
Fattah el-] Sisi, the people who marched against radical Islam in Tehran
where the president couldn't get himself to say anything about that --
in support of those kids in Iran. So we need to have that dynamic
created other than just having the President come to us and asking us
for military -- for a military blank check.

We will note the hearing in the next Iraq snapshot (I plan to include US
House Rep Alan Grayson in the next snapshot, for example). But we'll
close our coverage of the hearing tonight with these comments.US House Rep Brian Higgins: It amazes me in all of these hearings how
quickly we just kind of bypass the fact that the United States paid
about $25 billion to build up an Iraqi army and the first test of that
army was against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and they
essentially ran. And we are told that the reason that they were not
committed to the fight was because the previous prime minister, Nouri
al-Maliki, was not inclusive of the Sunni population and therefore
didn't feel as though it was a fight worth committing to. And now were
told that there's a new prime minister who's also a Shia but more
inclusive [chuckles] of the Sunni community and therefore we should have
confidence again in the Iraq national army. $25 billion. Thousands of
lives lost. And no commitment? Who are the most effective fighters in
Iraq today? The Peshmerga -- 190,000. And the Shia militia. The new
prime minister [Haider al-Abadi] had said that there are about a million
Shia militias who are trying to fill the void of the ineffectual Iraqi
army. Mr Brennan, you had said earlier, you talked about the Shia
militias who recently experienced success against ISIS. You also made
reference to Qasem Soleimani -- the Iranian Quds forces leader who
really negotiated [chuckles] the second term of Nouri al-Maliki with one
condition -- that the Americans leave. That the Americans leave. And
now we have a president's resolution before Congress asking to engage
again militarily. You know, the Shia militias are not there to prop up
the Iraqi government. They're there to do what Soleimani and others in
asymmetrical war fare try to do and that is to create a proxy in places
they want to control -- be it in southern Lebanon, be it in Syria, or be
it in Iraq. My concern is that if we commit American forces -- and
there's no pacifist wing of the American military -- everybody has
weapons and everybody fights and they die courageously when they do --
we are continuing a situation in this country that has been going on for
way too long. You know, what Tom Friedman -- the author and New York
Times columnist, once said. "Is Iraq the way it is because Saddam the
way he is or is Saddam the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?"
And I think it just speaks again to the sectarian, tribal nature of a
place that we are trying to impose a political solution to. You know,
we are told [chuckles] that the American military with extraordinary
courage, extraordinary commitment, extraordinary effectiveness could
only do one thing: Create a breathing space within which the Shia, Sunni
and Kurdish community could achieve political reconciliation including
the sharing of oil revenues. And we saw a hopeful sign in December that
that was occurring between the central government in Baghdad and
Kurdistan with the 17% sharing of the national revenues and also a
billion dollars to equip and train the Peshmerga. But I will tell you
where our investment has been made financially, where our investment has
been made morally has been an abject failure. And what we're proposing
to do with this resolution by the President is continue that failed
policy without any clarity about what it is that we're going to achieve
because when there's no political center -- here's what we know in that
part of the world -- when there's no political center there's only sides
to choose. And right now there is no political center. And don't
argue that the changing of a Shia prime minister in Iraq is going to
fundamentally change the will and the commitment of the Iraqi national
army. You know, let's just acknowledge that our investment of $25
billion in the Iraqi national army failed. Failed miserably. Because
when you say they all ran -- 250,000 of them -- in the face of 30,000
ISIS fighters, well certainly because Iraq is a majority-Shi'ite
country, many of those fighters would be Shia. So at least they wouldn't
run. So I don't know really what's going on here but I know where this
is leading and I think most Americans know where this is leading. It's
not to a good place because, again, America is essentially going it
alone for the third time in two different countries and unless there's a
recognition of minority rights, unless there's a recognition of the
pluralistic nature of Iraq, there will never be peace there.

Higgins, like many, used their entire time to address the AUMF. Whether
Committee members didn't think it goes far enough or they feel that it
needs to be stated that US troops will not be in on the ground combat or
whether they feel that the plan or 'plan' doesn't address the real root
causes of the crises, there was clear resistance to what Barack is
asking for.

On another note, stupidity came from RAND via witness Brennan who at one
point wasted everyone's time instructing that the Islamic State should
not be called that because they don't represent Islam (then he allowed
they represent some form of it) and we should show solidarity.

In lying?

Everyone calls the Hell's Angels the "Hell's Angels." No one really
thinks they are angels or that they are from hell. Similarly, the cult
Heaven's Gate -- who took part in a mass suicide back in 1997 -- was not
from Heaven or a gate to it. But that was their name so that's what
they were called.

I understand what Brennan's getting at.

I also think it's extremely stupid to 'brand' others and doesn't
increase tolerance or understanding but does increase labeling people
"the other."

A group -- terrorist or civic -- should have the name they themselves designate.

I'm not willing to live in a world where Brennan gets to dictate the lexicon based upon his own personal whims and fears.

There are US troops in Iraq today.

They've been under fire -- even the Pentagon admits that -- from mortar
attacks. Canada was just sending 'trainers' as well but those Canadian
forces have now twice been in combat on the ground in Iraq.

Anbar’s
provincial council called for “immediate and urgent military
reinforcements” after the attack on the town of al-Baghdadi, which began
in the early morning. Ayn al-Asad air base — where some 320 U.S. personnel have been training Iraqi troops and tribal fighters — lies five miles west of the town.

Reuters reports it wasn't just an attack near the base, fighters also "attacked the
heavily-guarded Ain al-Asad air base five km southwest of the town, but
were unable to break into it. About 320 U.S. Marines are training members of the Iraqi 7th Division
at the base, which has been struck by mortrar fire on at least one
previous occasion since December."

WASHINGTON,
D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray released the following
statement after voting to confirm Ashton Carter to be United States
Secretary of Defense. Carter
was confirmed by the Senate on an 93-5 vote.

“Secretary
Carter has a tough job ahead of him, but I am confident that he is the
right person to get it done. I look forward to working with him to make
sure our troops
are getting the care and support they deserve, our national security is
prioritized and protected, and we continue to invest in national and
Washington state defense priorities.

“I
met with Secretary Carter this week and talked to him about his plans
to protect our troops, fight terrorists wherever they are, and keep our
country truly safe over
the long term. We discussed the devastating impact of sequestration on
defense and non-defense investments and jobs. I also raised the
importance of protecting our military units, bases, and communities in
Washington state, which are critical to our nation’s
readiness and national security strength.

“I
am looking forward to working with Secretary Carter to make sure our
military is strong, our nation is secure, and our troops have the
equipment they need to stay safe
and complete their missions.”